Can a Case be Made for a Deistic Christian God?

[Joe_Campbell]

Hmmm well, I've played a Grand Theft Auto for a total of, maybe, 20 minutes in my lifetime.... it's not like playing with Barbie Dolls for obvious reasons...... um, some I'd rather not mention. It's an M-rated game, btw. That means 18+. I hope no 18 year olds still play with Barbie Dolls.
As for Final Fantasy, the series (and many games of the genre) are like the Mahler or Wagner of video games. You'll invest 40-70 hours in these game worlds. I could go into superlatives, but the basic point is, it's a little different than grabbing a Barbie Doll and playing dress up.

I'm sure you realize my point is in jest, but I know that you are passionate about these things, and I was just pointing out (sarcastically, mind you) that this might make you more defensive with respect to DR's indictments. For the record, I agree with you: GTA rocks!

[Fëanor]

...
Atheism is wonderful- I mean, when you don't believe there will be paradise after you die, but you just rot in the ground after struggling through a miserable life, only to have all of your dreams vanish and never be realized, it just fills me with ecstasy!
Oh man, I hope this happens to all of us.  0:)

It will.  

[Dr. Dread]

It will.  

It will probably be just like before you were born. 

[Fëanor]

I'm enjoying this thread!! 

[Catison]

I'm enjoying this thread!! 

Yeah, I would say that one of Beethoven's greatest moments ever was his case for the deistic Christian God.  The girl ain't bad either.

[Elgarian]

It will probably be just like before you were born.

Ah, those were the days. Everything was so much simpler somehow, back then.

[Dr. Dread]

Ah, those were the days. Everything was so much simpler somehow, back then.

Indeed. No pressure at all. Very peaceful.

[DavidRoss]

Read your posting history. No offense, but I always say to myself, sure he has some good points, but why does he have to be such an ass about it? I don't think you used to be that way.

Check your ego, hold back on the subtle (or not so subtle) insults. and maybe more folks will listen to you.

Thanks, Dave.  I took your advice and reviewed my posts on this thread, finding only critiques of faulty reasoning and several instances of personal praise or compliments (not insults) directed at different posters, i.e. Bjorn, Greg, Ernie, Elgarian, and even implicit praise for Feanor as sufficiently intelligent and rational to understand the criticism if he only puts his mind to it. 

As you know, I posted my notes on that review and invited you to check my perceptions.  You declined and so I deleted that post.  However, since you and Feanor (and Greg!) have made me and my style of presentation the subject of your posts, instead of addressing their cognitive content, I still want to know if I really am behaving like the ass you say I am, or the condescending self-righteous hypocrite that Feanor called me, so I continued reviewing all of my posts for the past couple of weeks.

What I found was that my posting style is much like yours (no surprise!), mostly consisting of smart ass comments intended to entertain and be humorous, but also to offer a wee bit of insight in case anyone's really paying attention.  Personally, I enjoy your smart ass comments, and I know that some members likewise enjoy mine.  Yet I can see how some might regard them as offensive, especially when their own comments are the fodder for our jokes--though I do not think either of us makes such comments in a spirit of meanness, nor do we ridicule those who don't ridicule others first--usually chronically (I will not apologize for ridiculing Eric, for instance).  Furthermore, there is a pattern of self-deprecating humor running through our comments, reminding everyone that we don't claim to be experts and don't take ourselves too seriously.  Unlike you, however, I do get adamant at times, especially about twisted logic and when posters make bigoted attacks on others, as happens chronically on these "Atheists rule, theists drool" threads that Ernie and Eric love so much.

I understand how those who might not "get" everything I'm saying could think I'm presenting as snotty and condescending, thus insulting, sometimes--but I really do try to guard against that and prefer risking that others might think I'm "condescending," rather than actually being condescending by dumbing down my comments in presumption that they're over most folks' heads!

One other thing became quite clear in reviewing these recent threads, especially the two latest "Atheists are smart, everyone else is an idiot" threads.  (With apologies to Bjorn, who certainly didn't intend that with the thread he started, this one.  He's been away so long that he seems to have forgotten what happens on this site whenever anyone tries to have a civil discussion about matters related to religion, God, faith, etc.  Ernie, Eric, and others--now Feanor, for instance--love to jump in and pummel religious folks with their bigoted vitriol.)  And that is the subject of the following post, a further response to Feanor's charges that in trying to keep the self-proclaimed "atheists" honest by holding them to the standards of logic and reason that they claim to revere, I'm being "self-righteous, condescending, and hypocritical."

[DavidRoss]

Feanor--rather than replying to the cognitive content of my posts addressing flawed assumptions and faulty logic, you have recently shifted the ground again, this time from attacking theists as ignorant imbeciles to attacking me personally as a "self-righteous, condescending hypocrite."  I have reviewed my recent posts for those faults, for I will gratefully apologize for them and correct them if your charges are true.  I do not see that they are.  I am willing to take instruction from you in this matter if you would be so kind--but before you presume to judge and correct me or anyone else, please correct your own "self-righteous, condescending hypocrisy" on this and the other current theist-bashing thread:

A spiritual universe might be a happy, comforting concept but isn't necessary to address any statable [sic] problem or issue.  That is, the only use of the spiritual universe concept is to comform [obviously a typo for "comfort"] the those whose sensibilities can't cope with the material universe.  I dare say it's the position of most atheists, scientists, and rational thinkers that it's not to the advantage of the human race to believe in humbug just because it offers short-term stress relief to some individuals.

(MNDave—note that you cheered him on for this, the very next post was yours):

POW!!

I'll concede that many scientists and rational thinkers believe in God.  What I'm not about to concede is these people are "completely rational", rather they have decide to compartmentalize their lives between what is based on observable, verifyable fact, and what is wishful thinking.

My advice, Daidalos, don't partronized the religionists.  Take the advice I once read on a 'frig magnet:  Don't try to teach a pig to sing.  It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

This is insulting in the extreme and I do take a lot of offense. But then again, it's one more proof --- if still needed --- that intolerance, dogmatism and superciliousness are trademarks of that branch of atheism which is abundantly represented here.

My, you're sensitive.  

Est modus in rebus.

Well then let me offer you a personal apology.  No personal slight was intended. [...] And here's the truth of the matter:  typically atheists are deadly weary of having to show "respect" to religious opinions.  Perhaps one religionist owes respect to the different opinions of a another religionist; they are on the same playing field after all .  But atheists have left the field.  To them all religion is merely ludicrous.

A rather strange apology, don't you think?  "Sorry I insinuated that you're a stupid pig.  What I really meant to say is that I'm sick and tired of pretending to be respectful toward you and that your religion is just a joke."  

I might have overreacted.  Sorry for the incivility.

Acknowledging possible error and saying that you're sorry is a great first step, but it's meaningless unless you act to correct the error and stop doing it--otherwise your apology will be recognized as nothing more than insincere BS.

What's absurd for me is this "special pleading" for religion.  Please explain to me why religion should be exempt from objective scrutiny.  Truly, I don't understand why this should be.

There is no 'special pleading'. I'm not defending 'religion'. I'm explaining (over and over again) the philosophical limitations of scientific enquiry.

Well, you should understand something so simple.  For most religious folks, it's all about faith, not logic or objectivity.  Applying some type of objective lens to the subject is a waste of effort (unless you just like little exercises).

You're right, I'm afraid.  And please recall what I say near the top of this thread ...

My advice, Daidalos, don't partronized the religionists. Take the advice I once read on a 'frig magnet:
Don't try to teach a pig to sing.  It wastes your time and annoys the pig.[/i]

So much for the apology tendered previously for the very same comment.

You are sounding selfrighteous and condescending, David.

Excuse me?  You also accused me of being a pot calling the kettle black.  I say again, "Excuse me?"

A personal apology would be nice, as well as a sincere apology to all the members of various faiths--as well as those of us with no religious faith at all--whom you have persistently maligned throughout these discussions.  Based on the pattern of behavior illustrated above, I will not expect that, but I can keep my mind open to hope!    I will also hope that we can all stop judging one another so harshly, stick to the cognitive content of our posts instead of the character of other posters, and strive to keep our minds open to to perspectives different from our own--otherwise we cannot learn anything...and instead of interesting discussions we will have only childish taunts and ongoing belligerence.

[Florestan]

It will probably be just like before you were born. 

Ah, those were the days. Everything was so much simpler somehow, back then.

Indeed. No pressure at all. Very peaceful.

We will lose by dying just as much as we lost by being born: everything. --- Emil Cioran.

[Dr. Dread]

We will lose by dying just as much as we lost by being born: everything. --- Emil Cioran.

At least we're used to it.

[Dr. Dread]

Feanor--rather than replying to the cognitive content of my posts addressing flawed assumptions and faulty logic, you have recently shifted the ground again, this time from attacking theists as ignorant imbeciles to attacking me personally as a "self-righteous, condescending hypocrite."  I have reviewed my recent posts for those faults, for I will gratefully apologize for them and correct them if your charges are true.  I do not see that they are.  I am willing to take instruction from you in this matter if you would be so kind--but before you presume to judge and correct me or anyone else, please correct your own "self-righteous, condescending hypocrisy" on this and the other current theist-bashing thread:
(MNDave—note that you cheered him on for this, the very next post was yours):My, you're sensitive.  Well then let me offer you a personal apology.  No personal slight was intended. [...] And here's the truth of the matter:  typically atheists are deadly weary of having to show "respect" to religious opinions.  Perhaps one religionist owes respect to the different opinions of a another religionist; they are on the same playing field after all .  But atheists have left the field.  To them all religion is merely ludicrous.A rather strange apology, don't you think?  "Sorry I insinuated that you're a stupid pig.  What I really meant to say is that I'm sick and tired of pretending to be respectful toward you and that your religion is just a joke."  
Acknowledging possible error and saying that you're sorry is a great first step, but it's meaningless unless you act to correct the error and stop doing it--otherwise your apology will be recognized as nothing more than insincere BS.

So much for the apology tendered previously for the very same comment.
Excuse me?  You also accused me of being a pot calling the kettle black.  I say again, "Excuse me?"

A personal apology would be nice, as well as a sincere apology to all the members of various faiths--as well as those of us with no religious faith at all--whom you have persistently maligned throughout these discussions.  Based on the pattern of behavior illustrated above, I will not expect that, but I can keep my mind open to hope!    I will also hope that we can all stop judging one another so harshly, stick to the cognitive content of our posts instead of the character of other posters, and strive to keep our minds open to to perspectives different from our own--otherwise we cannot learn anything...and instead of interesting discussions we will have only childish taunts and ongoing belligerence.

I'm not going to read all that. Peace.

[Florestan]

At least we're used to it.

Are we?

I remember a scene from Nikos Kazantzakis's "Report to El Greco": the author visits a recluse monk at Mt. Athos. After they part, the monk shouts: "My compliments to the world!". Kazantzakis retorts: "My compliments to God and tell Him not to be too angry at us sinners: it is He Who made the world so beautiful!"

[Dr. Dread]

Are we?

I remember a scene from Nikos Kazantzakis's "Report to El Greco": the author visits a recluse monk at Mt. Athos. After they part, the monk shouts: "My compliments to the world!". Kazantzakis retorts: "My compliments to God and tell Him not to be too angry at us sinners: it is He Who made the world so beautiful!"

Yeah, it'll suck but it's not like we have a choice.

[Florestan]

Yeah, it'll suck but it's not like we have a choice.

We can't choose the moment of birth or the moment of death; but for everything in between we are fully responsible. And I have always been fond of a certain French abbot who, asked about whether he believes in hell or not, replied: "Since our Holy Mother the Church teaches us that it exists, I certainly do. But I alos certainly believe there's nobody in it." 

[DavidRoss]

I'm not going to read all that. Peace.

Yes.  Peace is the point, Dave.  

[Dr. Dread]

Yes.  Peace is the point, Dave.  

I knew I should have kept my yap shut. 

[Dr. Dread]

We can't choose the moment of birth or the moment of death; but for everything in between we are fully responsible. And I have always been fond of a certain French abbot who, asked about whether he believes in hell or not, replied: "Since our Holy Mother the Church teaches us that it exists, I certainly do. But I alos certainly believe there's nobody in it." 

I like it.

[Florestan]

Yes.  Peace is the point, Dave.  

Actually, I think the most peaceful attitude we can have is: let everyone have his religious faith or lack thereof; there is no reason I, as a Christian, can't have a drink with an agnostic or an atheist, as long as he does not ridicule my own faith --- bottom line, we shall die and we shall see.  

[Florestan]

I like it.

Then you'll like Origen even more --- for him, the salvation of all, righteous and sinners alike, was an article of faith.